Limits on the number of manuevers?

[Papa Gruff]

I see your point about why declarations are easy, but I see this as just as viable (and thus acceptable) of a form of play as each person attacking independently, and nickel and dime-ing the guy to death.  Roll-wise, it's about the same (they're rolling opposed rolls for all these declarations and maneuvers), but at least I'm tracking damage less often! It also represents how in a fight like that, you might take a lot of little hits, but only a few really seem to matter.

You are right. Technically it is legit to declare stuff like you did in your example. Sinkers point was that using declarations like that isn't in the spirit of declarations. In accordance with the guidelines for declarations I'd treat any of the declarations from your example as of Fantastic +6 difficulty as the only thing they do is to give an extra edge. They aren't funny, nor are they cool or lead to something interesting...

I doubt that I'd allow something as extreme as your example at all. I'd probably would give the second player in the line a raise of my eyebrow and a grudging nod, but ask the third if he's serious...

[sinker]

Yeah, sorry, I was trying to give quick declarations but more examples. Technically, a declaration is any skill used in a knowledge-type way that could be done instantly (as a free action).  Each attacker could have declared "I use my fists vs his fists to size up his weaknesses, to help us set up a coordinated attack against him" and then maneuvered for "surrounded in a concerted coordinated attack".  Then the last person tags everything.  While, mechanically, this represents one person attacking, narratively it represents a bunch of guys working together (one swinging at you to tie up your hands, another kicking you so you try to block with your feet, while the guy behind you kidney shots you) to inflict major damage.

I really wasn't trying to disagree with your central point, it seems functional enough to me. I was just born a rules-lawyer so I have to nit-pick. Apologies.

[Becq]

I think that in that "dogpile" example, it would be extremely amusing for the 'victim' to go right after Attacker 3, and make the Declaration "The fighting style I was using was a ploy", then tag that aspect PLUS all of the other aspects the attackers put up to lay the royal smackdown on one of his assailants.

Some things to think about regarding Declarations:
* The GM is within is rights to say "no".  For example, the 'victim' above might be well versed in martial arts and perceptive.  He might well know exactly what fighting style Attacker 1 is using (or at least be familiar with a close analogue).  He might not only recognize Attacker 2's fighting style, but also recognize that Attackers 1 & 2 are timing their attacks with each other.  He might have been in two or three times as many brawls as Attacker 3.  And being aware of those facts, he may well recognize that he's being set up for an attack by Attacker 4.
* The rules suggest a difficulty for Declarations that's based on how interesting/funny the Declaration is.  The target number could be anywhere from 0 to 6, with particularly uninspired Declarations being fairly difficult to succeed with.
* When making Declarations "against" a target, it seems reasonable to allow a defense roll against the Declaration (in the above examples, the victim's Fists might defend his experience, or his Alertness might defend against being surprised).  Combine this with a high base difficulty and dull Declarations like "I fight better than him" might need quite a lot of luck on the dice to succeed.
* Something along the lines of "I've long practiced with my buddies to create a cohesive fighting style as a squad" shouldn't be Declaration.  It might be an aspect that one or more characters share (much like the "Hail, Hail" aspect that the sample characters have in YS), but it shouldn't be a Declaration.

[mostlyawake]

I doubt that I'd allow something as extreme as your example at all.

Yeah, i was giving the example just to show that it can be done.   The "interesting/funny" declaration is a tough call; it needs to be useful to the players enough that they use the mechanic, but hopefully not so much that they try to do so every round/action.  When you're making a declaration (like in the books? or was it on a blog? i read way too much about this game) that the enemy is poorly equipped with sub-par weapons, that's mildly interesting but still clearly an advantage to you.  When the next round you declare "oh and their armor is cheap, too..." it begins to lose interest.  

My favorite declarations plus maneuvers are things like declaring handy chandeliers and then maneuvering to "uppercut this psycho into the chandelier, tangling her up"... which i did last night to a PC and I'm still laughing about it.

[noclue]

The dogpile example is the same if you use maneuvers rather than declarations, isn't it? So, it could be this:

Character 1 makes a maneuver "I knock him off balance." Character 2 goes with "I shine a light in his eyes, blinding him." Character three goes with "I my gun, startling him." And Character 4 tags all three aspects.

Removes the declarations tangent.

[mostlyawake]

yup. But it buts a +2 on the guy, instead of a +4 (for declaration + maneuver).  as a GM, I only use declaration+maneuver to describe offscreen stuff to my overly rules-lawyering gamers:

Me "It appears the guy was killed in one blow"
player "How is that even possible? That's like 30 shifts of power with a tire iron."
me "Um, a butt-ton of declarations and maneuvers. Moving on."

[MyNinjaH8sU]

"He's not a player, he doesn't get consequences. Don't you feel special now?"

[Papa Gruff]

Me "It appears the guy was killed in one blow"
player "How is that even possible? That's like 30 shifts of power with a tire iron."
me "Um, a butt-ton of declarations and maneuvers. Moving on."

Good one ... hehe ... Next time you could just answer: "30 shifts? Hardly. He wasn't prepared to take consequences and the take out was described as you see."

It is a myth that you have to go through the hole stress track to kill somebody. Most people don't want to get their arm broken in the first place. If they don't take consequences then, depending on the described attack, it may be perfectly reasonable to state that they are dead.

EDIT: MyNinja was faster then me =(

[mostlyawake]

Is there a rule somewhere that some NPCs don't get consequences?  Cause I've been house-ruling that they get less or none to make it seem more realistic (that it doesn't take 30 shifts of knife to sacrifice a baby).

Perhaps I should re-read the NPC section again.

[Papa Gruff]

Is there a rule somewhere that some NPCs don't get consequences?  Cause I've been house-ruling that they get less or none to make it seem more realistic (that it doesn't take 30 shifts of knife to sacrifice a baby).

Perhaps I should re-read the NPC section again.

Yep. Basically low level NPC aren't supposed to get consequences or at most a minor. Check "Creating Opposition" Chapter in YW.

An other thing: Obviously it must be possible to kill a guy in one hit. It happens all the time in the real word. The rules are supposed to aid in the description of said world not the other way around.

[Richard_Chilton]

One thing that I do with NPCs - especially with social conflicts - is have them decide how much they are willing to go through.  If the PCs want some information in a social conflict I can't see the average person (i.e. the average PC) taking more than a minor consequence to keep the secret.  If it's a bar brawl I can't see someone taking a severe consequence just to keep fighting...  Actually, few of NPCs are willing to take severe, life altering consequences if their life isn't at stake.

In short, they aren't orcs.  They give in when when a normal person would give in.  They don't fight to the death over nothing - unless the PCs have a rep for killing then the NPCs have nothing to lose by pushing themselves to the wall to stay in the fight.

Richard

[Belial666]

And it might also be a question of overall toughness. Some people just give up or are just not good enough to keep going. Other people might keep going after being shot at by assassins, hunted by their own allies, getting involved in a serious car accident and being hunted by a police helicopter. And they'll keep fighting and go steal a car to crash into said helicopter.

[mostlyawake]

What consequences do you give to, say, an average ghoul? An average BCV?

It will significantly speed up play (and make the players feel more powerful) if they don't have to go through many consequences. 

On the other hand, it specifically states that sacrificing someone is all of their consequences in power, and that transforming someone else / killing someone else is very high complexity, due having to take out all of their consequences.

Would you say this changes for unimportant PCs?  Like, killing the gardener is only like a complexity of 12, but the president is still 30?  How is that reflected, game-wise?

(I guess the answer is "you don't really know if I wrote down that he has those consequences or not, so you'd better be prepared to go through them all").

[Becq]

Summary of the guidelines from YS327:

Nameless NPCs (thugs, mooks, and the like) generally don't get consequences, and also get little more than a couple of skills and a couple of stress boxes.  Supernatural creatures that fill a Nameless NPC role get whatever's on their template, but no more.  Generally these should be the types of creatures that players can plow through in (small) hordes.

Supporting NPCs get a bit more detail (more skills and perhaps one or several aspects).  They generally don't fight past a moderate consequence.

Main NPCs get everything that PCs would get.

That said, it's really up to the GM what opponents are put into each category, and you can even add in extra gradiations if it seems appropriate (for example, slightly more resilient thugs that get a minor consequence and an aspect).  There should probably be only a small number of Main NPCs in a given scenario.  Maybe the primary bad guy and a lieutenant or two.  If there are multiple factions involved, each one might deserve a main NPC or two.  Any time you want to just throw a handful of popcorn foes at the players, that's a job for nameless NPCs, who will generally rarely take more than one semi-decent hit to take down (and can be taken down by the group with AoE attacks).  Supporting NPCs would be good for adding a little backbone to a group of nameless grunts.

As to rituals and complexities, the caster can set the complexity anywhere he sees appropriate ... but you should not tell him how many consequences the target has, nor how many stress boxes, nor what defensive skills he might have.  The safest bet, then, would be to assume the worst, but the caster might not have enough resources to set up a ritual to turn a Mythic Toughness character with Endurance 5 (dual milds) etc into a frog.  Assessments might be useful here.  If the caster does some research and finds out the the target is just some two-bit thug that Marcone hired yesterday from Thugs R Us ... well, maybe the ritual can be scaled down a bit without sacrificing effectiveness.

[sinker]

And it might also be a question of overall toughness. Some people just give up or are just not good enough to keep going. Other people might keep going after being shot at by assassins, hunted by their own allies, getting involved in a serious car accident and being hunted by a police helicopter. And they'll keep fighting and go steal a car to crash into said helicopter.

Ha!